I'll be Unsubscribing to tReason TV! Ron Paul is going to be our next President. He is already a leader to many who wish to regain a Constitutional America. Katherine Mangu -Ward another media liar!!
Katherine Magnu-Ward says this about Ron Paul - "He doesn't have a plan for being president." "He's terrible when he talks about politics and what he would actually do if he made it to the oval office. That's because he knows he's never gonna get there."
Hey people, here's the wonderful Katherine Mangu-Ward's email.
If discrimination on the basis of an unchangeable physical trait like race is considered abhorrent, why should discrimination on the basis of an unchangeable physical trait like height be okay? What's the difference?
It occurred to me that this Katherine woman would not have been hired if she was overweight. Would that be discriminatory? If, for some reason, she or that Mike guy were to gain a tremendous amount of weight in a short period of time, say as a med side effect, they would get fired from their jobs. Would that be discriminatory?
How many other far more intelligent commentators are we not seeing because they've not been hired because they're short or overweight? Are we more ignorant as a result?
Even though I'm short I wonder about enacting a law like this. Looked at from the other side, however, if as I short person I made an extra $789- per year per inch shorter than a 6'2" guy - based solely on height - undoubtedly he'd be pissed about that. Would you like to be considered unemployable because you happen to be over 5'6"?
Re: obesity: I think that all of us should be going to the gym; obese people really need to watch their diets, too. Your health is important because you matter!
When I realized I was packing on a few pounds, you know what I did? I stopped stuffing my face and got a gym membership, and started exercizing at 6am in the morning. Why? Because I valued my physical fitness and health. If you are too gluttonous and lazy to get your weight under control (people with medical issues exempted) it's not my duty to hire your fat ass!!! And yes fat people make me lose my appetite. I don't want my waiter/ess being a fat, sweaty slob, I won't be able to eat!!
Lose some weight!!!!!! If I work hard and long to establish a business NO I do not want obese people to be the public face of it!!! I'm sorry if that hurts some fat person's feelings, but I don't want the first person my customers see to be an over-weight man or woman. Overweight people look slobby, that is a fact, and I as a business owner would not hire them, if I could find svelt individuals with the same qualifications!!! Fat people need to lose weight!!
I'm with Marina, the big lady. We big people can do a job just as well as a skinny person. I understand not being hired because of a criminal record, but to be denied a job because you are FAT is not right.
No you cant!! Why are people so childish?? You fat people have no self control, stuff your big pieholes, refuse to do enough exercise to burn efficient calories, and then you want to force people who don't want to be around fat slobs to hire you, when they could just as easily hire a fit, attractive person to do the same job? I can't stand the sight of fat people, and I will not apologize for thinking rolls of fat are disgusting to look at!!! Because it is!!!
GLUTTONY IS A SIN, AND YOU ARE A SINNER!! DON'T EXPECT PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE EFFORT TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR BODIES, TO BE SYMPATHETIC. i HATE EXERCISE, BUT EVERY MORNING AT 6AM, i FORCE MYSELF TO GET OFF MY BUT AND HEAD TO THE GYM WHERE I EXERCISE FOR 1 TO 2 HOURS 5 DAYS A WEEK. IT'S HARD WORK, BUT I DO IT BECAUSE I WANT TO BE FIT. YOU COULD DO THE SAME!! STOP KILLING YOURSELF! and stop trying to use the Government to force people to be in your disgusting company!!
blah blah blah....some ppl can't help it. Glandular and thyroid issues can play a part. I feel sad for people who feel the need to prove their hate for big people on the internet.
Oh, it's that easy, huh? Just find a job somewhere else. Didn't you listen to the lady's struggle? This kind of discrimination is everywhere. Where is she supposed to go? The moon?
You just have to ask yourself do we get our rights as individuals or do we get our rights because of the group we belong to? If the former then everyone gets the same rights. If the latter then certain groups of indviduals get privledged positions over others so you actually create inequality by this affirmitive action nonsense.
What about incompetent people? We need laws to protect people with incompetence from being discriminated against in hiring decisions! Fat people can lose weight, but dummies are dummies for life.
That's a strawman. The issue is whether it is okay to discriminate on the basis of irrelevant physical characteristics like height or weight that have no impact on a person's ability to do his job. Is it okay to discriminate on the basis of skin color? If not, then why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of height or weight?
No, a straw man means ascribing a point of view or argument to your opponent that they do not hold.
"The issue is whether it is okay to discriminate on the basis of irrelevant physical characteristics like height or weight that have no impact on a person's ability to do his job"
"How? How is the lady in the video any less capable a waitress because she's not skinny? "
This isn't just about her. Business are allowed to discriminate, and rightfully so. You're never going to see a topless guy waiting tables at Hooters, for instance, or a morbidly obese fitness trainer. It's perfectly legal to be looking for a Caucasian model for an ad, too.
The women in this video couldn't work in a small bar where there isn't a lot of space to move around.
You're still using examples in which one's appearance or fitness level is a requirement for the job. What about a theoretical case of a short financial analyst who is refused a promotion because of his height? Is that okay too? What if he was black? Should the laws against racial discrimination be overturned?
You're just afraid to answer it. The reason you're afraid to answer it is because it would force you to acknowledge that your position is inconsistent.
No, I'm trying to teach you how to properly identify a logical fallacy, since your post was riddled with them. Oh, and what I quoted is a bare assertion.
"The reason you're afraid to answer it is because it would force you to acknowledge that your position is inconsistent"
Sure it is. I understand what a loaded question is, and I honestly don't see it as loaded. It just looks like you're being purposely elusive, and I wasn't aware this was a formal debate. "red herring."
No it's not. It's another naked assertion and badgering, kinda what you'd expect hear in a casual conversation. Do you always follow logical laws when arguing with coworkers/family/friends about random stuff?
If anything is a red herring, it's your injection of 'valid' cases of discrimination into the conversation. The bill (H. 1844) would outlaw discrimination "unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification".
"if you know your assertion is without substance?"
Im the same way I might use to cut a conversation with a creationist short by saying "you've been brainwashed" in order to avoid more pointless arguing. The issue here is whether or not people who have been discriminated against on the basis of irrelevant physical traits should have legal recourse. You insist on skirting it by using examples like "topless guy waiting tables at Hooters", so what's the point in going on here?
"Im the same way I might use to cut a conversation with a creationist short by saying "you've been brainwashed" in order to avoid more pointless arguing"
Hilarious, nice of you to bring up creationists, like you they have habit of using logical fallacies instead of arguments.
"You insist on skirting it by using examples like "topless guy waiting tables at Hooters""
That's not skirting it, they're perfect examples of how nonsensical bills like this are, just like obese waitresses.
The bill wouldn't apply to topless guys at Hooters. It states that an employer cannot ".... hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification." Being a fit attractive female is a bona fide requisite for employment at Hooter's.
I'll be Unsubscribing to tReason TV! Ron Paul is going to be our next President. He is already a leader to many who wish to regain a Constitutional America. Katherine Mangu -Ward another media liar!!
kenman1863 6 months ago
Katherine Magnu-Ward says this about Ron Paul - "He doesn't have a plan for being president." "He's terrible when he talks about politics and what he would actually do if he made it to the oval office. That's because he knows he's never gonna get there."
Hey people, here's the wonderful Katherine Mangu-Ward's email.
kmw@reason.com
Go get her people!
mdeasy 6 months ago
If discrimination on the basis of an unchangeable physical trait like race is considered abhorrent, why should discrimination on the basis of an unchangeable physical trait like height be okay? What's the difference?
sjr4130 1 year ago
It occurred to me that this Katherine woman would not have been hired if she was overweight. Would that be discriminatory? If, for some reason, she or that Mike guy were to gain a tremendous amount of weight in a short period of time, say as a med side effect, they would get fired from their jobs. Would that be discriminatory?
How many other far more intelligent commentators are we not seeing because they've not been hired because they're short or overweight? Are we more ignorant as a result?
brainyscienceguy 2 years ago
Even though I'm short I wonder about enacting a law like this. Looked at from the other side, however, if as I short person I made an extra $789- per year per inch shorter than a 6'2" guy - based solely on height - undoubtedly he'd be pissed about that. Would you like to be considered unemployable because you happen to be over 5'6"?
Re: obesity: I think that all of us should be going to the gym; obese people really need to watch their diets, too. Your health is important because you matter!
brainyscienceguy 2 years ago
When I realized I was packing on a few pounds, you know what I did? I stopped stuffing my face and got a gym membership, and started exercizing at 6am in the morning. Why? Because I valued my physical fitness and health. If you are too gluttonous and lazy to get your weight under control (people with medical issues exempted) it's not my duty to hire your fat ass!!! And yes fat people make me lose my appetite. I don't want my waiter/ess being a fat, sweaty slob, I won't be able to eat!!
plutogirllovekj 2 years ago
Lose some weight!!!!!! If I work hard and long to establish a business NO I do not want obese people to be the public face of it!!! I'm sorry if that hurts some fat person's feelings, but I don't want the first person my customers see to be an over-weight man or woman. Overweight people look slobby, that is a fact, and I as a business owner would not hire them, if I could find svelt individuals with the same qualifications!!! Fat people need to lose weight!!
plutogirllovekj 2 years ago
I'm with Marina, the big lady. We big people can do a job just as well as a skinny person. I understand not being hired because of a criminal record, but to be denied a job because you are FAT is not right.
yaoigirl418 2 years ago
No you cant!! Why are people so childish?? You fat people have no self control, stuff your big pieholes, refuse to do enough exercise to burn efficient calories, and then you want to force people who don't want to be around fat slobs to hire you, when they could just as easily hire a fit, attractive person to do the same job? I can't stand the sight of fat people, and I will not apologize for thinking rolls of fat are disgusting to look at!!! Because it is!!!
plutogirllovekj 2 years ago
GLUTTONY IS A SIN, AND YOU ARE A SINNER!! DON'T EXPECT PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE EFFORT TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR BODIES, TO BE SYMPATHETIC. i HATE EXERCISE, BUT EVERY MORNING AT 6AM, i FORCE MYSELF TO GET OFF MY BUT AND HEAD TO THE GYM WHERE I EXERCISE FOR 1 TO 2 HOURS 5 DAYS A WEEK. IT'S HARD WORK, BUT I DO IT BECAUSE I WANT TO BE FIT. YOU COULD DO THE SAME!! STOP KILLING YOURSELF! and stop trying to use the Government to force people to be in your disgusting company!!
plutogirllovekj 2 years ago
blah blah blah....some ppl can't help it. Glandular and thyroid issues can play a part. I feel sad for people who feel the need to prove their hate for big people on the internet.
yaoigirl418 2 years ago
Haha. Funny quotes:
1. "I'm a dancer." (Giggling is not dancing.)
2. "The don't know I can handle 5 plates." (Yeah they do.)
HymerSchmidt 2 years ago
On a serious note, fat people are larger insurance risks, have less stamina, and are unpleasant to look at. THAT is proven.
HymerSchmidt 2 years ago
Oh, it's that easy, huh? Just find a job somewhere else. Didn't you listen to the lady's struggle? This kind of discrimination is everywhere. Where is she supposed to go? The moon?
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago
Well, I guess we should have never outlawed slavery then.
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago
Why not?
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago
Katherine Mangu-Ward's position is anything but REASONable.
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago
You just have to ask yourself do we get our rights as individuals or do we get our rights because of the group we belong to? If the former then everyone gets the same rights. If the latter then certain groups of indviduals get privledged positions over others so you actually create inequality by this affirmitive action nonsense.
mipoleon 3 years ago
it might be discrimination but its also freedom of speech!!!
thegzspot 3 years ago
What about incompetent people? We need laws to protect people with incompetence from being discriminated against in hiring decisions! Fat people can lose weight, but dummies are dummies for life.
mackler 3 years ago
What's next, stupid people claiming it's discrimination that they can't find a job as a rocket engineer?
deBeuk 3 years ago
That's a strawman. The issue is whether it is okay to discriminate on the basis of irrelevant physical characteristics like height or weight that have no impact on a person's ability to do his job. Is it okay to discriminate on the basis of skin color? If not, then why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of height or weight?
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago
"That's a strawman"
No, a straw man means ascribing a point of view or argument to your opponent that they do not hold.
"The issue is whether it is okay to discriminate on the basis of irrelevant physical characteristics like height or weight that have no impact on a person's ability to do his job"
They do have an impact.
deBeuk 2 years ago
How? How is the lady in the video any less capable a waitress because she's not skinny?
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago
"How? How is the lady in the video any less capable a waitress because she's not skinny? "
This isn't just about her. Business are allowed to discriminate, and rightfully so. You're never going to see a topless guy waiting tables at Hooters, for instance, or a morbidly obese fitness trainer. It's perfectly legal to be looking for a Caucasian model for an ad, too.
The women in this video couldn't work in a small bar where there isn't a lot of space to move around.
deBeuk 2 years ago
You're still using examples in which one's appearance or fitness level is a requirement for the job. What about a theoretical case of a short financial analyst who is refused a promotion because of his height? Is that okay too? What if he was black? Should the laws against racial discrimination be overturned?
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago 2
"You're still using examples in which one's appearance or fitness level is a requirement for the job"
You seem to realise that that can be the case, great. Do you agree that bills like this shouldn't see the light of day then?
"What about a theoretical case of a short financial analyst who is refused a promotion because of his height? Is that okay too?"
Red herring alert. Try an example that's actually relevant (you know, like the ones I've used).
deBeuk 2 years ago
"Should the laws against racial discrimination be overturned?"
Loaded question fallacy.
deBeuk 2 years ago
You're just afraid to answer it. The reason you're afraid to answer it is because it would force you to acknowledge that your position is inconsistent.
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago 3
"You're just afraid to answer it"
No, I'm trying to teach you how to properly identify a logical fallacy, since your post was riddled with them. Oh, and what I quoted is a bare assertion.
"The reason you're afraid to answer it is because it would force you to acknowledge that your position is inconsistent"
And this is another red herring.
deBeuk 2 years ago
"bare assertion."
Sure it is. I understand what a loaded question is, and I honestly don't see it as loaded. It just looks like you're being purposely elusive, and I wasn't aware this was a formal debate. "red herring."
No it's not. It's another naked assertion and badgering, kinda what you'd expect hear in a casual conversation. Do you always follow logical laws when arguing with coworkers/family/friends about random stuff?
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago 2
(cont.)
If anything is a red herring, it's your injection of 'valid' cases of discrimination into the conversation. The bill (H. 1844) would outlaw discrimination "unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification".
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago 2
"Sure it is"
Then why did you post it if you know your assertion is without substance?
"I honestly don't see it as loaded"
But it is.
"It just looks like you're being purposely elusive"
No, I'm just calling you out on your BS.
"I wasn't aware this was a formal debate"
What, that means you can just talk nonsense?
"No it's not"
Yes, it is.
deBeuk 2 years ago
"Do you always follow logical laws when arguing with coworkers/family/friends about random stuff?"
You're not coworkers/family/friends.
deBeuk 2 years ago
"if you know your assertion is without substance?"
Im the same way I might use to cut a conversation with a creationist short by saying "you've been brainwashed" in order to avoid more pointless arguing. The issue here is whether or not people who have been discriminated against on the basis of irrelevant physical traits should have legal recourse. You insist on skirting it by using examples like "topless guy waiting tables at Hooters", so what's the point in going on here?
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago 3
"Im the same way I might use to cut a conversation with a creationist short by saying "you've been brainwashed" in order to avoid more pointless arguing"
Hilarious, nice of you to bring up creationists, like you they have habit of using logical fallacies instead of arguments.
"You insist on skirting it by using examples like "topless guy waiting tables at Hooters""
That's not skirting it, they're perfect examples of how nonsensical bills like this are, just like obese waitresses.
deBeuk 2 years ago
The bill wouldn't apply to topless guys at Hooters. It states that an employer cannot ".... hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification." Being a fit attractive female is a bona fide requisite for employment at Hooter's.
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago 3
"my own livelihood as a dancer and waitress"
I think the free market speaks for itself here. Most customers wouldn't want her as a stripper.
Bttry01 3 years ago 3